With a title like that you could be forgiven for thinking that this article was going to be about my dating history. Sadly it's not a list of mistakes and lapses of judgement, just the listing of games refused classification by the OFLC. Wait...

One quick things first.

The OFLC doesn't ban games. Games apply for classification and that classification can be refused, making them illegal to sell. This is a de facto ban, and I can't be bothered going through the linguistic hurdles of writing “refused classification” every time I want to mention the concept, so I'm saying banned despite it being technically wrong. Deal with it.

This isn't a comprehensive list of banned games, by any means. There are a lot that were banned with probably good reason (Postal, I'm looking at you) and a lot that were banned for stupid reasons, but are no loss. A scan through the list of banned titles reveals such awesome titles as Immoral Cumbat, Jo Guest in the Milk Run, and Strip Poker. Which were pr...

With a title like that you could be forgiven for thinking that this article was going to be about my dating history. Sadly it's not a list of mistakes and lapses of judgement, just the listing of games refused classification by the OFLC. Wait...

One quick things first.

The OFLC doesn't ban games. Games apply for classification and that classification can be refused, making them illegal to sell. This is a de facto ban, and I can't be bothered going through the linguistic hurdles of writing “refused classification” every time I want to mention the concept, so I'm saying banned despite it being technically wrong. Deal with it.

This isn't a comprehensive list of banned games, by any means. There are a lot that were banned with probably good reason (Postal, I'm looking at you) and a lot that were banned for stupid reasons, but are no loss. A scan through the list of banned titles reveals such awesome titles as Immoral Cumbat, Jo Guest in the Milk Run, and Strip Poker. Which were pretty much banned for being stupid. No, this list is intended to highlight some of the more questionable decisions by the OFLC, even within the current ratings system.

Night Trap - 1992

The first game that deserves mention is NightTrap. NightTrap may as well have been called Nightie Rape, and the titillating cover image and slightly sexual themes made the game the posterchild for moral crusaders. Senate enquiries in Australia led to the creation of the current censorship laws, and also their restriction to MA rating for games, disallowing an R equivalent.

The most interesting thing about Night Trap in this context is that for all the controversy it was never actually banned itself. In view of its actual content when it was held to the ratings system it had spawned, it was given a relatively mild M rating, not even the highest allowable.

Phantasmagoria – 1995

Like Night Trap before it, Phantasmagoria was a CD based full motion video adventure game with some adult content. Ahhh, remember full motion video games? They guaranteed extreme suck like putting the word “Sonic” on a game does these days. Phantasmagoria featured two sex scenes between a man and his wife. (Remember, sex outside of marriage is a sin, kiddies!) The first scene was a minor scene, consentual and not explicit. The second scene was more controvertial, showing an encounter that starts intimate but turns nasty and violent as the husband is overtaken by a dark force. This reminds me strongly of the movie The Devil's Advocate. Which in turn reminds me that Yug has borrowed my copy of The Devil's Advocate and I should get it back. In any case, the censorship board declared that sex scenes containing violence were not allowed.

But considering scenes containing consentual non-violent sex have also caused banning it seems like a wholely redundant ruling. Like having a special law banning murder while eating an icecream.

Grand Theft Auto III – 2001

In 2001 Take 2 made the expensive error of assuming GTAIII would be granted an MA15+ rating. They were wrong. Classification was refused, appealed, and then re-refused on exciting new grounds. The major reasons for its refusal was sexualised violence, including the infamous concepts of doin' hookers and then bashing them up for their money. The response of the classification board on the appeal is lengthly, but actually quite valid. It's the only thing on this list that isn't a stupid decision (in my opinion). They essentially state that the game is for adults, and there's no room in the ratings system for that. They also recommend that there should be an R rating added to the system.

“Perhaps the Ministers responsible would give consideration to an R rating for computer games, as is available in films and videotapes, so that adults may see and hear and play what they want - legally.”


BMX XXX - 2002

Another iffy call was the banning of BMX XXX in October of 2002. There's no real justification for this game. It's quite terrible by any standards that are meaningful (like overall quality, gameplay, or graphics). But the reason for its banning wasn't any one of those things. It was banned for nudity, and for harsh language. Yes, harsh language. The nudity is interesting (as nudity tends to be). There are two places in the game that feature nudity. One is the video cutscenes. These are of relatively low levels of sexuality, generally covered up, and show no nipple action. What's the point of nudity without nipples?

Anyway, the contentious issue isn't that. It's that the character customisation screen lets you nudify the characters without the neat y-fronts that... well... better games force on you. The OFLC's issue is that the game displays genitalia, a no-no by their standards. I haven't been able to find any further information about these pixelated genitalia. It's amusing to note that BMX XXX was available in New Zealand, proudly brandishing a “Banned in Australia” logo. Yeah? Well at least we don't fuck sheep! Ha ha ha, man, they didn't see THAT one coming.

Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude – 2004

The death knell of any video game is sexual content. This is particularly strange in light of the number of games where high level violence is shrugged off, but mild, animated, implied, sex between consenting adults becomes suddenly wrong. Hey, I was brought up Christian, so I'm on board with the whole “sex is wrong and dirty” thing, that's why I like it so much. But the inconsistencies in sexual content by contrast to violence in our society are somewhat baffling. It's interesting to note that LSL: MCL (catchy) was only banned in Australia. The same version was passed in the USA, and a more explicit “Uncut” version sold without question in Europe, the country with a brain.

Yes, Europe is a country now. Try and keep up.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – 2004

The hypocrisy continued in 2004 with the infamous Hot Coffee scandal. Hot Coffee was a storm in a teacup, to coin a phrase. GTA:SA already featured glorification of gang violence, use of drugs, corrupt police, and incomprehensible dialogue. That's not relevant, it just bugged me.

The game allowed you to murder innocent civilians and police, and required you to deal and traffic drugs and weapons to progress. Murder was a staple of the gameplay, as it is in all GTA games. And yet a hidden and unavailable scene depicting non-explicit consentual sex between two adults causes controversy. Why? This game, like Leisure Suit Larry, if nothing else highlights the unneccessarily draconian restrictions that are placed on sexual content and nudity in video games. This level of sexual activity in a movie would be well within the M rating, yet in a game puts it above MA.

Reservoir Dogs – 2006

And again, the theme of “what's ok in movies isn't OK in games” continues with Reservoir Dogs. Naturally the Tarantino masterpiece movie is R rated, and without an R rating for games there was no way this was going to get through.

Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure - 2006

Marc Ecko's Getting Up was Refused Classification in February of 2006 in one of the strangest judgement calls the OFLC has made. Getting Up is an anti-establishment game, notable for its use of graffiti as a gameplay mechanic. The game was refused classification because it “includes or contains detailed instruction or promotion of matters of crime“. This is a slightly obscure ruling, that was last used to block sale of a shoplifting instructional manual to university students. Its application to this game is bewildering. Considering so many games feature “matters of crime” it's an odd call on this. A game like Hitman is a good example. Call me old fashioned, but isn't professional murder more serious than graffiti? Why would you draw the line at graffiti? And what makes Getting Up so much more significant than Jet Set Radio? A game that had more or less identical themes and “crimes”, on a reduced colour palette.

Dark Sector – 2008

Dark Sector was originally refused classification for its extreme violence, including decapitations. The only reason this is worthy of note is that other games, such as the recent gorefest Ninja Gaiden 2 feature casual dismemberment and yet passed the censor board without question or comment. Dark Sector was considered “high impact” due to things like the twitching of limbs after severing. The inconsistency and general randomness of the censorship system in Australia is a terrible problem for distributors in Australia.

This title has now been resubmitted with some violence removed and classified as an MA15+ title. But that had to be done at the expense of the distributor, costing them several thousand dollars in fees to resubmit, and only after already losing thousands on delays, wasted advertising, etc.

Fallout 3 – 2008

Just over a week after Shellshock 2 was banned for its violence, Fallout 3 copped a ban differing from the traditional norms of sex and violence. The issue in Fallout 3 was drugs. Characters may use Morphine to remove pain in their extremeties when they have been damaged. The concept of using drugs to provide a positive effect on game mechanics is a very serious naughty to the OFLC, and this isn't the first game banned on those grounds. Blitz: The League (2006) and Narc (2004) had the same issues. There are other games where drugs are used by the player that haven't resulted in a ban. Marines in Starcraft use a “stim-pack” to boost performance, Grand Theft Auto 3 allowed you to grab pills that would slow down gameplay mechanics to allow you to shoot more accurately and (if memory serves) jump higher. In Max Payne you could take painkillers to replenish your health. The fact that these were “generic” drugs doesn't alter the facts. In Metal Gear Solid (the original) and Metal Gear Solid 4 the player can take Pentazapam and Diazapam, prescription muscle relaxants that improve your sniping abilities. Apparently the suit in Half Life repeatedly says “Morphine administered”.

It's interesting to me that the use of morphine to reduce pain is not considered acceptable. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that what morphine is for? Is that a secret?

It's not just morphine, though. There are a range of “chems” used in the game to enhance abilities, and according to the OFLC they draw too close to reality for comfort, making Fallout 3 leap into the category of “Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use “. Fallout 3 merely has the wrong combination of factors to slip through like so many other games have: the drugs are too real, the drugs are illegal, and the drugs are seen to be administered.



For now all of these games, some good, some bad, are unavailable to Australian adults. (OK, yeah, Dark Sector is available.) It fascinates me that we have the right to buy actual sex with a prostitute in a brothel, but not the right to see pixelated nipples. The standards are so unclear and the messages so mixed, that it defies belief.

General random violence is fine. Unless it goes too far. How far makes “too far” is pretty much a guess. Drugs are bad. Probably. Oh and sex is very very very bad. It's that last one that particularly interests me. That such high levels of violence are accepted, but low levels of sex and nudity are not. As far as values go, this is just bizarre. How did we get so mixed up that violence is good and generally OK? And where did we get the idea that sex is bad? I mean... apart from by having it with me.

I have a great deal of trouble reconciling that non-explicit consentual sex between two consenting adults is more harmful or negative than even the mildest of violence. I don't want to come across all John Lennon here, but something is very wrong.

Sex and Drugs. They're the two killers for video games in Australia. Two things our society has no tolerance for. Note that no games have actually been banned for “rock and roll”, which is really a pity. It would be nice to see Guitar Hero: Aerosmith banned before it can burn my memory of loved series faster than a George Lucas remaster.

Can I make the recommendation that the OFLC consider banning games based on the fact that they're shitty licenses of popular movies? Or because they use cliched characters and dodgy dialogue? Can the OFLC ban games because they're just not any good? Don't get me wrong. I'm anti-banning, but if things are going to be banned can we make it so they're not banned for reasons that are pants-on-head retarded?

It's easy to say that the problem here is the lack of an R rating, that all of these games could be put into an R rating bin. But it's more than that. Even within the current allowed ratings there is plenty of spasticity that needs to be looked at, and a level of inconsistency that should be fixed.